tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8907857867460408098..comments2017-09-24T11:41:48.268-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Religion and the Possibility of ChangeAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71273544816237627502007-10-04T13:02:00.000-06:002007-10-04T13:02:00.000-06:00I got my idea that you view that the purpose of mo...I got my idea that you view that the purpose of morality is to punish or reward people because you said “The purpose of morality is to use the tools of praise and condemnation to create or promote good desires and to weaken and eliminate bad desires.” That can be restated as, “the purpose is to use these means to attain this end.” I find that a post hoc focus on changing desires through reward and punishment.<BR/>I would propose that purpose of morality is much broader than this. Even if we accept your view that it is concerned with good and evil rather than good and bad, I think the first task of morality is to develop a common reference or outlook by which we can generate a consensus definition of what is good and evil. Once we do that, we need a way to apply those definitions to desires and actions, and develop a common understanding of what falls into which categories and why. Third, we create agreements, institutions, and social understandings that facilitate good behavior and impede evil behavior. These don’t modify desires, they just make it easy to fulfill the good ones. Thus the main purpose of morality is to help people who want to have good desires understand what desires are truly good, and to be able to act on them effectively. Using praise and condemnation to modify desires, rather than the purpose of morality, is only minor factor primarily involved in early child rearing and in treatment of those who fail to act in acceptable ways.Atheist Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-37475634973527054862007-10-03T14:26:00.000-06:002007-10-03T14:26:00.000-06:00I do not know why you think that I view that the p...I do not know why you think that I view that <I>the purpose</I> of morality is to punish or reward people.<BR/><BR/>Let us take your baseball analogy for example.<BR/><BR/>We can take all of the rules of baseball and effectively put them into two groups.<BR/><BR/>Group (1) rules are regulations that describe the game. It describes the distance between the plates, what counts as a strike, what counts as a ball, how to score, and the like.<BR/><BR/>Group (2) rules are rules that carry a penalty. "Any player who does X will be subject to penalty Y."<BR/><BR/>Both sets of rules exist for the same purpose - to create an entertaining game. However, they are still two different types of rules.<BR/><BR/>Let us say that I want to talk only about Group (2) rules. I give them a name. Let's say, I call them 'Group (2) rules' and, by this, I am talking about rules that carry a penalty.<BR/><BR/>It does not follow from this that I am saying that 'Group (2) rules exist <I>for the purpose of inflicting penalties on people</I>. I am saying that "Group (2) rules are those rules that exist for the purpose of making a good game that carry a penalty."<BR/><BR/>This is the same distinction that I hold with respect to morality.<BR/><BR/>We have a number of rules that exist for making life better for self and others. A subset of those rules involve promoting desires that tend to fulfill other desires and inhibiting desires that tend to thwart other desires. The tools that are available for this are praise and condemnation.<BR/><BR/>The <I>purpose</I> of promoting good desires rests in the fact that good desires tend to fulfill other desires. The fulfillment of other desires is the <I>purpose</I>. The use of praise and condemnation to manipulate maleable desires is the <I>means</I>.<BR/><BR/>People can dispute whether they want the term 'morality' to refer to more than this. People can dispute whether they want the term 'planet' to include Pluto. These types of disputes really are not substantive.<BR/><BR/>Whether we use a broad or narrow definition of 'planet' does not affect what is true or false about nature. Whether we use a broad or narrow definition of 'morality' does not affect what is true about fulfilling desires by promoting maleable desires that tend to fulfill other desires, and inhibiting maleable desires that tend to thwart other desires, through praise and condemation.<BR/><BR/>It's just a dispute over what we are going to name things, and nothing of substance hinges on such disputes.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63122576094145696412007-10-03T12:33:00.000-06:002007-10-03T12:33:00.000-06:00Alonzo,My problem is with your view that the rules...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>My problem is with your view that the rules exist for the purpose of enforcement. I find that exactly backward. We don’t have rules for baseball for the purpose of ejecting players who break the rules. Nor do we have rules for baseball for the purpose of praising those who follow the rules and condemning those who break them. We have rules for baseball so we can have games that players and fans enjoy. Sometimes players get ejected, but that isn’t the purpose of the rules, nor is it relevant to most players most of the time. Most players want to follow the rules, and do so to the best of their knowledge and abilities.<BR/>Perhaps my concept of morality is rather broad, but the assertion that morality is about nothing more than praising and blaming is incredibly narrow.Atheist Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34391381149036289452007-10-03T11:06:00.000-06:002007-10-03T11:06:00.000-06:00Alonzo - I didn't mean faith doesn't exist, althou...Alonzo - I didn't mean faith doesn't exist, although I should have worded my response better. I just meant it's not mysterious.<BR/><BR/>Eenauk - Faith is believing something simply because it feels good (or, conversly, because not believing it would be very painful). I suppose you could do all sorts of research into this, as you point out. However, the way I read your second post, it seemed to suggest that faith is a physical force of some kind, which is mysterious and elusive.Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-55301310380877278752007-10-03T05:51:00.000-06:002007-10-03T05:51:00.000-06:00atheist observerI would argue that your account of...<B>atheist observer</B><BR/><BR/>I would argue that your account of 'morality' is far too broad. For example, it would include such things as grammar and spelling, or even the choice of language, which are clearly rules that provide a mutual benefit. It would include fashion and design, and even physical appearance, since these affect others who might encounter the individual. It would make the manufacture of a poor movie (a 'waste of time' not only a practical blunder but a moral crime.<BR/><BR/>Morality applies only to a subset of things that serve the purposes that you mention. The distinguishing characteristic of this subset is its concept of (morally) good and evil. What distinguishes the (morally) good/evil distinction from the more generic good/bad distinction is, among other things, its necessary connection to the concepts of 'praiseworthy' and 'blameworthy'.<BR/><BR/>The items that you mention - being truthful, honest, seeking knowledge, showing kindness, tolerance, helping the unfortunate - are all things that we have reason to praise, in order to make these traits more common. Rape, theft, assault, sophistry, deception, abuse, negligence, are all things we have reason to condemn, even to punish, in order to promote an overall aversion to these types of actions.<BR/><BR/>Determining which desires to promote or inhibit is exactly concerned with determining which desires are for states that benefit self and others (desires we have reason to promote) from desires that bring harm to others (desires we have reason to inhibit).Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-64128385616490490552007-10-03T05:38:00.000-06:002007-10-03T05:38:00.000-06:00EneaszI do not understand your response. It seems ...<B>Eneasz</B><BR/><BR/>I do not understand your response. It seems quite clear that 'faith' exists. It may be, like malaria, something that we should want to exterminate, but it still exists. And, like malaria, discovering the best ways to eradicate it or innoculate people against it would be to understand what we are innoculating them against.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69065199970961892612007-10-03T05:04:00.000-06:002007-10-03T05:04:00.000-06:00Eneasz - that was no BS. and i do care quite a bit...Eneasz - that was no BS. and i do care quite a bit about research. I don't think it is clear at all what faith is or how it works: we at least need some evolutionary explanation for how it arose (something like the work on altruism in SOBER and WILSON's _Unto Others_) and we also need some research on how it interacts with other "brain functions" such as knowledge.<BR/><BR/>As to the "simple and widely available" explanation of what faith is, i don't know what you are referring to. We _think_ we know, but i haven't yet found much actual scientific research on the matter.<BR/><BR/>And "How does it work?" is not a bizarre question: it's _the_ fundamental scientific question! Think of Einstein and his compass.eenauknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77051957981337066192007-10-02T22:13:00.000-06:002007-10-02T22:13:00.000-06:00Atheist observer,Very nice comment. I agree with ...Atheist observer,<BR/>Very nice comment. I agree with much of what you say. I especially like this:<BR/><BR/>"Usually it has to do with understanding the consequences of one’s actions and choosing those that not only benefit the self, but directly or indirectly benefit others without bringing harm."<BR/><BR/>In repsonse to so many believers who say, "without God, why be moral". I have always thought, simple to avoid negative consequences to myself and others, and promote postive consequences.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-46258230134322991122007-10-02T17:00:00.000-06:002007-10-02T17:00:00.000-06:00I find the statement “The purpose of morality is t...I find the statement “The purpose of morality is to use the tools of praise and condemnation to create or promote good desires and to weaken and eliminate bad desires” to be as peculiar as “The purpose of the police is to use guns and clubs to subdue criminals.”<BR/>I would propose that the purpose of morality is to help society identify and live by concepts, relationships, behaviors, and, yes, states of affairs and desires that are mutually beneficial to the individuals concerned. Morality more often than not has nothing to do with praising and condemning. Usually it has to do with understanding the consequences of one’s actions and choosing those that not only benefit the self, but directly or indirectly benefit others without bringing harm.<BR/>I would class all the actions of being truthful, honest, seeking knowledge, showing kindness and tolerance, and helping the unfortunate as moral, yet none of them involve praise or condemnation of any kind. In fact they’re not directed at changing desires at all, but at expressing the moral values of the individual in his or her life.<BR/>If we define morality as what we do to manipulate people, I think we’ve missed the essence of morality entirely.<BR/>Praise, condemnation, rewards, and punishments have a necessary role in human life, but if one wishes to make the world a better place, I believe setting the example of living up to one’s own values and working to educate and help others have the positive lives they already desire will make a bigger difference.Atheist Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18390172797984749872007-10-02T13:14:00.000-06:002007-10-02T13:14:00.000-06:00Eenauk - I smell bullshit. I doubt you actually ca...Eenauk - I smell bullshit. I doubt you actually care about research at all, and simply want the doubters to shut-up. If you cared at all about actually finding out what faith is you wouldn't even have to ask (since the answer is simple and widely available), and wouldn't ask such bizarre questions like "How does it work?" as if faith was a physical object or force.Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13436221620638437382007-10-02T04:13:00.000-06:002007-10-02T04:13:00.000-06:00on another, more substantial note: i can't say tha...on another, more substantial note: i can't say that i agree that faith is all wrong and that science needs to do as much damage control as possible. I think another good way for scientists to approach faith is ... to study it! Find out what faith does, how it works, etc. Perhaps we will figure out how to recalibrate faith and make it something useful; perhaps we will find out that it is not faith after all that had been causing all these problems but some other co-occurring "feature". But for that, we'd have to _know_ what we were talking about.eenaukhttp://onwardsandforwards.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-75049216097648248342007-10-02T04:06:00.000-06:002007-10-02T04:06:00.000-06:00"It would be quite interesting, I think, if the sc..."It would be quite interesting, I think, if the scientific-minded people in this dispute were to actually call forth their expertise to look for the evidence for and against their various positions and examine that evidence critically, just as they would do so for a paper written in their chosen professions."<BR/><BR/>Amen! it's high time anti-god scientists stopped preaching like baptist ministers and started proving their points like any scientist should.eenaukhttp://onwardsandforwards.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com